"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matthew 7:15)
By Judi McLeod, Canada Free Press
November 11, 2010
"Be Prepared” must be the two most commonsense words known to humanity.
And in times like these, being prepared is survival.
The NGOs (non-government organizations) already unleashed in France, Germany, England and Greece will soon be taking to the streets in America, George Soros-described as “the biggest obstacle to One World Government.”
NGOs, long fomenting for revolution, and on the payrolls of the One World Order deadly duo George Soros and Maurice Strong, are not the good guys. The political, strategic spawn of Soros and Strong, they are the paid agents of change, looking to Barack Obama to get the job done.
It was Strong who long ago came up with the blueprint for coupling the money from “philanthropists” and business with the objectives of government.
The thousands of private Non-Government Organizations that have attached themselves to the United Nations like leeches are well funded and right on target.
No one describes the NGOs better than Phyllis Schlafly who has watched them for decades:
“The NGOs are energetic lobbyists for dramatic changes in the mission and structure of the UN to achieve global governance. Most NGOs are also members of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which originated many of the global environmental polices set forth in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Climate Change, and Agenda 21. The most prominent NGOs are the radical environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the feminist and population-control groups such as Planned Parenthood.”But the NGO member, both cunning and conniving, make like they are on the side of the masses. They are the next door neighbour, the cantor singing at Sunday service, the babysitter who teaches your children that evil capitalism must be stomped out; that Mommy and Daddy are polluting the Planet.
Perhaps the most dangerous thing about the Soros-Strong largely off-the-radar bid for the serfdom of One World Government is their legacy. Both men have sons, ready to pick up the reins of power. We leave it to Glenn Beck to identify them, to show their pictures on cable television so all will know who they are before they step into Papa’s boots.
Meanwhile, in the White Noise that surrounds us all with even right-of-center talking heads tugging at both minds and purse strings, no one seems to be letting people know how to hang in, or even to brace themselves for coming calamities.
But good people everywhere already knew in their hearts what they must do.
With politicians from both sides of the political spectrum promising to jump into the fire to save We the People, people have had to become their own government.
When it comes to protecting your loved ones, God and you have always been, and are now, the ultimate authority.
Just a few tips for staying on the merry go round without falling off in Obama Times:
- Be prepared is tip number one. Keep each other informed. Recognize propaganda when you see it. (i.e. Open Society Institute’s (OSI) latest propaganda video portraying Soros as a kind and charitable man who truly cares about people).
- Hunker down is tip number two. Draw your loved ones and friends near to you wherever possible. If you live in a city and have relatives in the country, consider moving in with your rural kin. Share costs, share cooking, cleaning and organizing duties.
- Stockpile is number three. Stockpile against hyper inflation. If inflation doesn’t come to pass, you will have saved on grocery bills by prudently buying in bulk. Always cheaper.
- Make sure all prescriptions are filled. Stock up on aspirin, bandages, antibiotic ointments on the home-front.
- Batteries, candles, radios that don’t rely on electricity are always good to have at the ready.
- Keep games to entertain children on hand in the event of power outages. Include playing cards for the adults.
Their job, for which they are paid handsomely, is to bring down the Republic. Your unpaid and never-ending one is to protect your family.
Keep your morale running high. Imagine the in-fighting going on behind the scenes for those who are power-crazed. (i.e. Nancy Pelosi).
Anticipate the next chapter before it begins. When the King of the World returns, he will work to ruin Christmas (from the Obama Rule Book, “Demoralize, Demoralize, Demoralize!) Meanwhile you and the kids are making homemade Christmas decorations and laughing about last year’s Mao Christmas ornaments on the White House Christmas tree.
There is always this truth to keep in mind: There is nothing magic about George Soros, Maurice Strong, their army of NGOs just as there is nothing magic about community organizers Barack and Michelle Obama. They are pathetic people driven by human greed and a strong lust for power.
Above all, keep your soul shining and the home fires burning.
March 11, 2010
Those beating the global warming drum have sure taken a few lumps lately.
First there were the hacked e-mails from climate scientists, which critics say show an effort to massage some data and keep some scientists out of the debate.
Then there was an admission from the Untied Nations' top climate body saying that it relied on some flawed numbers to predict a Himalayan glacier would soon melt.
Add to this a few high-profile U.N. resignations, plus little progress on climate laws and one of the snowiest winters the East Coast has ever seen, and it's enough to wonder: Do climate change scientists really know what they're talking about?
So CNNMoney went beyond the climate scientists and put the question to a broader swath of people with trusted scientific opinions yet not necessarily with skin in the game.
And who better to talk about the issue with than a man who gets paid no matter what it's doing outside: a local weatherman.
"I always feel it's best to talk to a climatologists," said Justin Kier, a weather anchor at WACH TV in Columbia, South Carolina. "And the scientific community tends to agree on one particular side."That side is the scenario laid out by the now oft-criticized United Nation's report three years ago: That the earth is getting warmer, that's it's largely caused by humans, and the consequences could be severe.
8 weird ways to save the Earth
Kier, who goes on the air five nights a week to deliver the local forecast, believes there is plenty of room for debate, especially over the specifics on how fast the planet is warming and what the consequences might be.
And like everyone contacted for this story, he stressed that all sides should be heard, even those who believe climate change is either not happening or not caused by humans.
"That's the only way we're going to get differing opinions and advance the science," he said.But regardless of the debate, when it comes to the causes and consequences of global warming the American Meteorological Society basically agrees with Kier, perhaps in even stronger terms.
"The atmosphere, ocean, and land surfaces are warming; humans have significantly contributed to this change; and further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, [and] on ecosystems," reads the society's official policy statement on climate change.What about the recently hacked emails or revelations that mistakes were made with some of the data in the U.N. report?
"The body of research is very large and the dependence on any one set of results is very, very small," reads the society's response to the email debacle. "Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true -- which is not yet clearly the case -- the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."The skeptics
There are people, people making big decisions in Washington, that whole heartedly disagree with that statement.
"If global warming is real, then it is our biggest problem," Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga, was quoted saying while arguing to cut funding designed to help farmers adapt to a changing climate. "But it doesn't seem to be treated as science as much as policy."Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oak., a longtime climate change skeptic, went a step further. He called for possible criminal charges against the scientists involved in the email debacle.
"We knew they were cooking the science to support the flawed agenda," Inhofe said in a statement.Climate skeptics generally feel that laws limiting emissions are too expensive and put the country at a competitive disadvantage to other nations, costing American jobs. Plus they generally don't see global warming as a problem making enacting new laws a moot point.
Some legitimate climate scientists doubt that the earth is warming or that the warming is caused by humans. But they appear to be a very small part of the overall scientific community.
U.S. government scientists recently warned that "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced." This despite instances of regional or short-term cooling.
In a report authored by scientists from 13 government agencies over both Republican and Democrat administrations, the scientists said the changes are already visible and likely to accelerate at an even faster pace than predicted by the U.N. report.
That assessment has not changed in light of the hacked emails or other mistakes.
"I find it unfortunate that things are being cast that way in the media," said Ahsha Tribble, a senior policy advisor at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, one of the lead agencies on the report. "We stand strong behind the quality of our research and the integrity of our scientists."NOAA isn't necessarily on the sidelines -- many of their scientists served on the U.N. panel.
But another group is not actively involved in writing market reports: America's teachers. And for now they're siding with the government scientists.
"We support teaching evidence-based science, and right now it's overwhelmingly in support that climate change is occurring," said Francis Eberle, an earth science teacher for 15 years and now executive director of the National Science Teachers Association.Eberle did say that science changes over time, as more data comes in and more tests are performed.
"There is a debate," he said. "And scientists need to discuss and question and criticize each other."For all the debate over the science behind climate change, the biggest debate is probably over what to do about it.
Some say acting now, which would be costly, is like buying an insurance policy: It will be much cheaper and more humane to limit emissions now than deal with the consequences later, particularly if they are severe.
Others argue that the consequences may not be that severe, and that acting now would be a waste of money. Better to wait 10 or 20 years for the cost of renewable energy and other technologies to fall.
By Paul Joseph Watson, PrisonPlanet.com
November 30, 2009
With the reverberations of climategate still echoing, it has now emerged that children are being greenwashed in public schools by being forced to sing climate cult ditties and hate their parents as part of a United Nations propaganda program aimed at capturing young minds, as the UN itself officially acknowledges the global warming mantra as a new religion.
A shocking new UN strategy document also reveals how elitists are recruiting members of academia from all over the globe in an effort to hide the “end-run” around national sovereignty that their program represents.
“When did global warming turn into a forced religion?” asks the New York Post’s Andrea Peyser as she tells the story of how her daughter came home from school singing the words . . . “You can hear the warning — GLOBAL WARMING . . . ”That’s right, in the spirit of the Club of Rome’s 1991 resolution to make humanity the enemy in creating the contrived threat of environmental armageddon, children have been turned against their own parents in the service of a new Gaia religion.
“All the kids had been coerced into singing this catchy ditty, which we called 'The Warming Song,' at a concert for parents. Further song lyrics scolded selfish adults (that would be us) for polluting our planet and causing a warming scourge that would, in no short order, kill all the polar bears and threaten the birds and bees,” writes Peyser.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself,” they wrote in a report entitled “The First Global Revolution.”“Our children are on the front lines of the warming hysteria, a place where 'experts' from Al Gore to the president leave no room for dissent or even the slightest skepticism, despite claims that are no more provable than the Earth is flat,” says Peyser. A newly uncovered document sheds some light on the genesis of how such brainwashing found its way into our schools: A strategy paper for the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental watchdog, reveals how the global elite in charge of the green takeover resolved that:
“Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,” according to a Fox News report.This approach follows a similar tack to the new methods adopted by Al Gore, who in his recent presentations has delivered his message as a kind of religious sermon, acknowledging, “Simply laying out the facts won’t work.”
The UN planning paper outlines a program of implementing a global system of governance based around environmental regulations and laws, stressing the agenda for the “evolutionary nature of strengthening international environmental governance.”
Participants included Janos Pasztor, currently head of the team pushing UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s unprecedented Seal the Deal lobbying campaign to pressure UN member governments into signing a new environmental agreement at Copenhagen; Dominic Waughray, currently head of environmental initiatives at the World Economic Forum; Maria Ivanova and Bulgarian academic Maria Ivanova, director of the Global Economic Governance Project at the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.
A core element of the program includes, an extensive propagandizing role for UNEP that reaches beyond its member governments and traditional environmental institutions to “children and youth.”
“Civil society, including children and youth, and the private sector will be reached through tailor-made outreach products and campaigns,” states the document.The document discusses recruiting academia to further the power of UNEP, noteworthy in light of the recent climategate scandal where scientists at major universities were caught hiding evidence of global cooling.
As the Swiss paper puts it:
“[UNEP] should pioneer a new style of work. This requires going beyond a narrow interpretation of UNEP’s stakeholders as comprising its member states — or even the world’s governments — and recruiting a far wider community of support, in civil society, the academic world and the private sector.”
At the same time the paper warns that these groups need to be “harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments.”
This passage is fairly damning, as the UN is all but admitting that the program does represent an “end-run around member governments,” and that they have to do their best to hide the fact.
The goals enshrined in the document, a counterpart to the globally binding agreement that the UN is seeking to achieve in Copenhagen next month, are “certain to remain a UNEP rallying cry long after the Copenhagen meeting is over — and while the other brainstorming ideas that went into the new four-year strategy, not to mention the strategy itself, go into effect,” writes Fox News’ George Russell.
This document represents yet another smoking gun proving that the climate cult movement is all about expanding the power of a dictatorial, unelected global government, diluting powers of nation states, seizing control of the global economy, eviscerating the middle class with a raft of new regulations and laws, and shutting down industry with impossible CO2 reduction mandates, while erecting environmentalism, which is really a thin veil for global fascism, as the new universal religion.
This has nothing to do with saving the earth and, as the climategate scandal has illustrated, nothing to do with the real science – but everything to do with a relatively small clique of globalists running roughshod over humanity itself in pursuit of their malthusian control freak agenda.Top 12 Misconceptions About Climate Change
Climate Change: Hoax of the Century
'Make Obama Watch Ghostbusters', Campaign for Liberty, December 7, 2009
By Philip Beresford, The Sunday Times
March 1, 2009
The global rich are going green as never before. This first Sunday Times Green Rich List shows that the enthusiasm among the world’s wealthiest for investments in areas as diverse as electric cars, solar power and geothermal energy is unaffected by the recession.
The Green List has unearthed 100 tycoons or wealthy families worth £200m or more who have made either serious investments in green technology and businesses or hefty financial commitments to environmental causes. In total, the Green 100 are worth nearly £267 billion.
This enormous sum demonstrates that many of the world’s richest tycoons and entrepreneurs have embraced environmentalism. Indeed, our list is dominated by America’s wealthiest financiers and entrepreneurs such as Warren Buffett (worth £27 billion) and Bill Gates (worth £26 billion).
These two canny investors, who regularly swap places at the top of Forbes magazine’s annual list of world billionaires, have spent some of their financial firepower on areas such as wind power and electric cars in Buffett’s case, while Gates has backed alternative fuels such as oil from algae. We are not talking trifling sums here. Buffett has invested $230m in the Hong Kong battery-maker BYD.
Many of the 35 Americans in the Top 100 are drawn from Silicon Valley. Having made their first fortunes in microchips, the internet or software, the likes of Google’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin (each worth £7.5 billion) are turning to green investments with all the entrepreneurial zeal that made their first fortunes.
It helps that the Obama administration is committed to a huge stimulus package involving the very technologies that investors are focusing on.
Even tycoons who are not in President Barack Obama’s camp have moved into alternative energy, none more so than T Boone Pickens, oil explorer, corporate raider and a Texan Republican to his core. He is using part of his £1.8 billion fortune on filling the huge and windy Texas Panhandle with turbines as part of his Pickens Plan to wean America off its dependence on foreign energy.
American money may be chasing smarter and greener technologies, while the Chinese rich on our list are definitely about mass production of green technologies.
The 17 Chinese tycoons in the Top 100 are concentrated at the bottom end of the list and they are almost exclusively involved in solar and electric-car technology. It is a ferociously competitive market with unremitting pressure to cut costs and gain market share.
As such, all the Chinese fortunes have been hammered as share prices have fallen sharply. A year ago, many would have been in the Top 50, but not now. Indeed, some of them will not survive the steep downturn they are now battling through. But out of it will emerge winners selling much cheaper and more technically advanced products to a huge market worldwide.
There are 10 British or British-based tycoons on the list. None is going head-to-head with the Chinese in mass production. And they are not taking the German route. The seven German tycoons are largely involved in wind turbines and the like. This is a bespoke market — meat and drink to the German industrial sector.
The pity is that aside from Sir Richard Branson, who is investing in alternative fuels, there are no real British equivalents of Aloys Wobben. A German engineering graduate, Wobben started Enercon in 1984, building his first wind turbine in his back garden. Today the company employs 6,000 staff and exports sophisticated turbines all over the world.
German entrepreneurs who have made their fortunes elsewhere are also moving into green technology in a serious way, defying the prevailing economic gloom.
Twins Andreas and Thomas Strungmann built a £6.8 billion pharmaceutical fortune. Having sold their pharma business, they put many millions into saving a German solar company early last year just as the economic outlook worsened.
America’s wealthy are not just investing in new technology, they are also spending their fortunes on direct environmental activism, saving large tracts of wilderness from developers, endowing university research into green energy, climate change and the like.
This can have a huge impact in changing the mood in favour of more green activism on the political front, making the climate right for Obama to push through radical green initiatives that would not have been contemplated in George Bush’s presidency.
There is little evidence of any appetite among Britain’s super-rich for this approach. Firmly rooted in property, finance or retailing, they have little time or surplus wealth for anything other than lip service to green issues. They are also involved in firefighting to keep their businesses afloat. When the recession is over, there are precious few forecasters who think the City and the like will return to its glory days. With traditional factories and industries closing in record numbers, where will Britain’s future prosperity come from? It is a sobering thought.
Obama’s Involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange
Obama, Maurice Strong, Al Gore Key Players Cashing in on Chicago Climate Exchange
Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire
Al Gore 'profiting' from climate change agenda
The almost simultaneous emergence of the Environmental and New Age movements in the 1970s has spawned a plethora of hybrid ecospiritual philosophies. These include the Gaia hypothesis, Deep Ecology, Sacred Ecology, Ecosophy, and Creation Spirituality. These philosophies all overlap with each other to some extent but tend to focus on different aspects of ‘protecting the earth from humanity.’
Perhaps the most dangerous and radical is the philosophy known as Deep Ecology.
Deep Ecology is a semi-religious movement that believes modern civilisation’s anthropocentric (human-centered) worldview is the root cause of an imminent complete ecological collapse. Deep ecologists blame humans for this fast-approaching apocalypse and believe that humanity’s destructive activities must be halted immediately, by any means necessary, and at whatever cost.
Deep ecologists argue for a radical reduction in human population, in human "interference" in nature, and in the human standard of living. They argue that primitive peoples lived in spiritual harmony with the natural world, but European industrial culture has severed this harmony and we have become a feral untamed plague on the earth. According to them industrial society is like a cancer spreading through a global host.
In some ways, Deep Ecology has similar roots to Gaia hypothesis, in that humans are part of a sentient super-organism known as Earth. However, Deep ecologists go further than the Gaians in arguing that humanity is genuinely of no more importance than an amoeba or the smallpox virus. Deep Ecology argues that humanity has no hierarchical dominance or any sense of uniqueness. We are just another animal, and a crazed, destructive one at that. While Gaians tend to focus on spiritual aspects of communing with Mother Earth, Deep ecologists focus on the negative aspects of human activity on the earth.
Deep Ecology has greatly influenced grassroots environmentalism, especially in Europe, North America, and Australia. It has spread through “road shows” and ritual processes led by touring movement advocates, through the writings of its architects (often reaching college students in environmental studies courses) and perhaps especially by the dramatic activism of its radical environmental vanguards e.g. Earth First!, Greenpeace, the Earth Liberation Front, and PETA.
The Deep Ecology philosophy was no doubt strongly influenced by The Limits to Growth published by the Club of Rome in 1972. This book claimed that human society was far outstripping the earth’s regenerative capacity and the world was on the brink of an environmental catastrophe. The term ‘Deep Ecology’ was first used by the famous Norwegian philosopher, and ‘mystical Buddhist,’ Arne Naess in 1973. He claimed that the science of ecology was shallow and meaningless as it looked at the world from a human perspective, while Naess argued that the human species has the same ‘intrinsic value’ as a bacterium or an earthworm. He stated the eight core principles of Deep Ecology were:
- The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
- Richness and diversity of life-forms contribute to the realisation of these values and are also values in themselves.
- Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
- Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
- The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
- Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
- The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
- Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.
Radical environmental activism flourished during the late 1970s, fuelled by recruits from the anti-Vietnam war and Civil Rights movements. News reports were replete with stories about ‘’hippies” chained to trees and activists burning down animal research facilities.
Radical environmental activism seems to have died a slow death since the 1990s as the wider green movement considered their actions to be counter-productive and harmful to the cause. However, the philosophy behind Deep Ecology has continued to spread and infiltrate the movement. Few people realize that ‘respectable’ environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy were originally formed by radical activists who recognised that their ultimate goals could only be realized through political and social tools
Many of these organisations now act as consultants to the United Nations. Anti-human sentiment and subtle calls for ‘human reproductive control’ are sprinkled throughout Agenda 21 and the Earth Charter. Many prominent environmentalists are now touting population control as the only answer to the world’s problems. Even the original Gaian, Sir James Lovelock, has taken to calling humans “an out of control cancer that Gaia will soon eradicate.”
It appears that the Global Green Agenda includes controlling every aspect of human activity, especially our reproduction. Humans, as a destructive pest species, must have their population tightly controlled, and even significantly reduced according to some:
"The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size." — Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.135
"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." — Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
"If the world pollution situation is not critical at the moment, it is as certain as anything can be that the situation will become increasingly intolerable within a very short time. The situation can be controlled, and even reversed; but it demands cooperation on a scale and intensity beyond anything achieved so far." — The Fairfield Osborne Lecture by HRH Prince Philip
"I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the cull to the size of the surplus population." — Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." — Ted Turner, CNN founder and UN supporter
"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." — David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." — Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, pg.75
November 17, 2010
George Papandreou, the Greek prime minister has said that there may need to be new Europe-wide forms of taxation to help pay for the bail-outs that will be needed by the growing number of crashing economies in the euro-zone.
His suggestions include “carbon dioxide taxes” which, he says, could provide “important revenues and resouces for funding such a [bail-out] mechanism.”
I’ve never actually heard a major politician (let alone a national leader) admit this before: what Mr Papandreou is saying is that carbon taxes would have not have the effect of reducing emissions -- because if they did, they would be useless as an additional form of revenue.
All the hokum that is talked about protecting the planet by taxing carbon use is just a front for the real purpose of such penalties on industry and consumers, which is to raise more money for governments to spend (in this case, on trying to remedy their own political follies).The Georgia Guidestones
The Green Movement Is the One World Religion
The One World Government of the Devil
The Lord Has Foretold Us All Things: He Has Known the End from the Beginning